This is a guest blog written by Dr Tom McNeil, The JABBS Foundation for Women and Girls CEO and CJA Trustee. In this blog, Tom reflects on key takeaways from research into public opinion on crime to date. If you are a CJA member and would like to collaborate on a story, get in touch by emailing media@criminaljusticealliance.org.uk.
While I am proud of my book, Public Opinion on Crime: Message Framing and Deliberative Democracy for a Progressive Consensus, at a lengthy 282 pages I am well aware only the enthusiasts will make their way to the details. The good news is, for those people, the book will be published by Routledge online with free open access in Autumn 2025. For everyone else, this short blog summarises some of the key lessons from the academic research into public opinion on crime to date. It also outlines some of the main conclusions I have drawn on how opinions on crime are formed, and how we might go about challenging punitive sentiment for a fairer justice system.
The starting point for this book, is a deep concern over the expensive failures of the prison system and the potential barrier to change arising from punitive public attitudes. If there is no political or administrative mandate for modernisation from the public, better alternatives may continue to fall victim to rhetoric or pandering. The book therefore rests on the importance of winning public support for progressive crime prevention, such as more therapeutic interventions for people enduring mental ill health, poverty and addiction. It argues that progressive initiatives remain small-scale and precarious, partly due to fears of public backlash around justice reform, while injustices from an unfair system prevail.
First, I summarise ‘penal populism’ and ‘populist punitiveness’ theories. Referring to scholars such as David Garland, these describe in various ways the widely held view that Western nations have become increasingly punitive in recent decades. It is the rise of mass incarceration that is most stark, especially for those communities most demonized on account of racist scapegoating. These trends are typically portrayed as being an interconnected combination of escalating inequalities through entrenching capitalist dynamics:
- The media’s stereotyping of disadvantaged communities and weaponization in political rhetoric.
- The denigration of expertise and evidence including around rehabilitation.
- The associated punitive sentiment among the public, which is both inspired by and inspires retributive government policies.
However, such theories often lack evidence when it comes to truly defining and understanding ‘the public’, which can be too readily overgeneralised and treated as a homogenous whole. Likewise, analyses too readily omit examples of progressive policies over the same period, such as wider-spread community drug treatment programmes or family support initiatives.
Punitiveness theories nonetheless remain relevant. Their intricate accounts of society signal key dimensions in opinion formation such as message framing, public education, underlying ideologies and the role of emotion. Likewise, there is no escaping the increasing encroachment of jail on society and escalating political exploitation of law and order. An analysis of academic studies and national surveys in the UK, does demonstrate a degree of punitive public sentiment and ill-informed views. As well as typically overestimating crime rates, risk of victimisation and leniency in the justice system, a majority of people still often express support for harsh punishments such as the death penalty and longer prison terms. While this public punitiveness is real, the evidence to date misses opportunities to understand the diversity of public opinion, the ‘mechanisms’ behind opinion formation and methods for meaningfully engaging and influencing punitive attitudes. First, public opinion trends can oscillate, and in fact both UK and US studies typically show some evidence of declining support for punitive policies over the decades. Existing public opinion research also frequently identifies that greater contextual information (e.g. the role of poverty and abuse in one’s journey into crime) can reduce expectations of and calls for harsher punishment. Likewise, studies identify differences in opinions between demographics and point to the benefit of more in-depth and educative discussions with members of the public. That is to say, people’s opinions can change, when afforded the opportunity to have real conversations beyond the surface. However, deeper analyses are needed to really get under the skin of opinion formation.
To address the gaps, I pull together the concepts of message framing, media influence, public education and underlying ideology. Additional contextual information can encourage more public leniency on punishment. Likewise, unsurprisingly, we need to recognise that the public’s level of knowledge about crime is often built on their reliance on fictional or exaggerated accounts in the media. Message framing that depicts crime as a problem that needs solving, such as through public health, can garner more preventative ideas. However, ‘framing’ alone is insufficient and can be unpredictable in effect, as elaborated on in the book – we cannot imagine that we can simply ‘frame our way out of the problem’. Indeed, done clumsily and people can feel patronised or be pushed to greater polarisation. Vitally, a more contemporary risk is posed by fake news and social media algorithms, which present a real threat to justice reform. This is especially true when frames interact and resonate with pre-existing beliefs, ideology and emotions built on fear. The role of racism and anxieties born from economic insecurity, serve as barriers to attitudinal change and require sensitive and deliberate engagement to find common ground.
Combining these elements, we can present a ‘fuller picture’ for shifting crime attitudes, that resonates with emotions in a healthier way, while not shying away from the concerns people have. This can be a narrative that blends awareness and sympathies for childhood trauma, life hardships and their relationship with crime. It can then tie to factual accounts of effective crime prevention and their significant economic impact; triggering human comfort or amenability to propositions that appear economically sustainable and otherwise credible. Ignore people’s scepticism on rehabilitative efforts, and they may default to trepidation and doubt. Tapping into justifiable public fears on economic stability and public expenditure, while joining the dots between the causes of crime and preventative opportunities, this ‘social sustainability frame’ offers a fuller narrative. I believed this deserved further academic attention.
In this book I emphasise, as other scholars have done, the potential role of ‘deliberative democracy’ for enhancing public crime debates. Genuine attitudinal change likely requires something far more substantive and prolonged than a media headline. This is what deliberative democracy aims to do. The key pillars fundamentally focus on truly respectful debate, listening and joint problem-solving between those with diverging perspectives. I argue that if we widen public participation in crime debates beyond deliberating in constitutional settings like parliament, we can tackle flaws in contemporary democracy. This is what is needed to mitigate the exploitation of ideological polarisation. Both rational and emotional content are integral. If we can overcome logistical barriers, deliberation presents a new opportunity to achieve perceived legitimacy and inspire public confidence in reimagining justice.
In my own fieldwork, a diverse range of participants that started off polarised, came to a progressive consensus. This happened after hearing and debating a combination of competing expert presentations including pro-prison arguments, and lived experience accounts. While certainly not statistically significant given the small sample and interview methods, I found that all those with a starting bias for punishment and tougher sentences, moved towards a stronger focus on early intervention and rehabilitative approaches. As groups, they co-produced solutions that emphasised better family support, early years development, supportive education environments and community alternatives to prison. Participants were also all persuaded by the economic benefits of preventative measures. That said, detailed responses in interviews suggest that combining economic frames with both moral and sophisticated financial evidence, is what has the real potential for wider-reaching impact. For some, the emotional narratives of those who became caught in the justice system following traumatic lives, resonated strongly. Not for everyone. Importantly, it was the full narrative that combined evidence, facts, frontline insight and emotional expression that appeared particularly influential. This coming within respectful debate between participants and allowing authentic challenge, was equally as important.
There are many studies across disciplines that find deliberative democracy processes can bring diverse groups together, towards consensuses and more evidence-led positions. This includes deliberating crime. My fieldwork adds qualitative depth to that body of work, but clearly further investigation is required to identify any trend that can be considered reliable. Nonetheless, it presents a credible pathway to how punitive attitudes can be brought to a place of common ground – there can be little sensible argument against the importance of respectful debate and education. Making this a reality probably requires a combination of deliberative democracy training programmes, to ensure it is properly convened, inclusive and professional. Government bodies, including devolved authorities like Police & Crime Commissioners and Deputy Mayors, have a role in cultivating higher quality debates in local communities, and could use their convening power to ensure truly informed debates. This is provided there is some independent guidance and input on balanced content. Likewise, well-tested and research-informed artificial intelligence offers new frontiers for enabling truly mass access to informed dialogue on criminal justice, and the evidence base for non-punitive solutions.
As I note at the start, there is a whole world of additional detail here, not least the sensitive principles of deliberative democracy itself; designed to prevent conversations with the public being manipulated in the same ways as exploitative media. Then there are discussions on the different ways emotions manifest, and how emotions should not be seen as the enemy – they are the bedrock of empathy and the human motivation behind change. However, this blog serves as a starter for ten.
People’s attitudes can and do change. Evidence is capable of being influential. Respectful and cooperative debate can bring us all close together to plan for a more effective and fair justice system.
